Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Mar 2011 08:30 UTC
Microsoft Oh irony, thy silver thorn strikes like the moonlight through my delicate skin. While this complaint could actually hold merit, the fact it's coming from Microsoft lessens its validity somewhat. Redmond has just filed an antitrust complaint about Google in Europe.
Order by: Score:
v Innovation in what?
by bitwelder on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:10 UTC
RE: Innovation in what?
by flanque on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:33 UTC in reply to "Innovation in what?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Google didn't create YouTube, they purchased it. That's not innovation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Innovation in what?
by ricegf on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Innovation in what?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Microsoft didn't create PowerPoint, they purchased it in 1987 for $14 million. So you're saying that none of the changes since that date were innovative?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Innovation in what?
by flanque on Thu 31st Mar 2011 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation in what?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't recall saying that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Innovation in what?
by bitwelder on Thu 31st Mar 2011 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Innovation in what?"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

My question again is: where is Microsoft innovation?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Innovation in what?
by yossarianuk on Thu 31st Mar 2011 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation in what?"
yossarianuk Member since:
2009-04-01

You seem to have forgotten the only innovation MS has made - W.G.A (and also turning the computer industry into a McDonalds style world)

Personally I have seen more more innovation in the Linux world in the last decade (compiz came before Vista/7)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Innovation in what?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 31st Mar 2011 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Innovation in what?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

(compiz came before Vista/7)


But not before Quartz.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Innovation in what?
by Savior on Thu 31st Mar 2011 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Innovation in what?"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

But not before Quartz.


Which of course came 3 years after Project Looking Glass.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Innovation in what?
by kittynipples on Thu 31st Mar 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Innovation in what?"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Wrong. Quartz was officially introduced in 1999, Project Looking Glass is from 2003 or so. The hardware accelerated Quartz Extreme even predates PLG.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Innovation in what?
by bouhko on Thu 31st Mar 2011 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation in what?"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

I'm not a big Microsoft fan, but there is at least one domain where they have been doing a lot of development : realtime 3D rendering (aka games) [1]. Of course, NVIDIA and ATI played their role in these developments, but it's a team game.

Microsoft research also has a lot of interesting projects and is employing a lot of smart guys :
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

Now, what's funny is that they are complaining in the context of search and mobile phones... and yeah in these domains, I haven't seen a lot of innovations from them =)

[1] http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/john-Carmack-DirectX-OpenGL-API-Doom,...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Innovation in what?
by Nth_Man on Thu 31st Mar 2011 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Innovation in what?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/john-Carmack-DirectX-OpenGL-API-Doom,...

There they talk about the interview that made another site: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-bett...

As it was already written in http://www.osnews.com/thread?467079 :

The article you've linked to [http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-bett...] mixes up a family of API's (Direct X) with a 3D only API (OpenGL). The journalist should have mentioned Direct3D when comparing to OpenGL. Carmack would never make such a mistake, hence the article probably has more journalistic interpretation / freedom in it than actually quoting Carmacks exact words. The proof is still in the pudding, since Carmack is still using OpenGL for idTech5 rendering engine, and not Direct3D. There was a period in 2006-2008 where OpenGL got intangled in a dispute amongst it's members regarding the future direction of OpenGL. However, ever since they got their act together, OpenGL has been moving faster and adopting newer technologies more agressively than the Microsoft offering. There have been 3 more OpenGL spec releases in the last 18 months compared to Direct3D. Each spec matches hardware requirement (what's the point of doing a release if it doesn't target hardware support). Hence, OpenGL 4.1 supports more hardware features than Direct3D.

Disclaimer - I write 3D rendering engines professionally for a living.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Innovation in what?
by Neolander on Thu 31st Mar 2011 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Innovation in what?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Now, what's funny is that they are complaining in the context of search and mobile phones... and yeah in these domains, I haven't seen a lot of innovations from them =)

You're being unfair, WP7's UI is very nice and refreshing, truly something which shows that Microsoft can learn from their past mistakes...

If only there was more to this OS than it!

Edited 2011-03-31 21:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Innovation in what?
by _xmv on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:59 UTC in reply to "Innovation in what?"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

The market is unfair, yes, so there is something to complain about it, but:
""We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate," Smith concludes, "But it shouldn't be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives"

So, Google 'innovates' e.g. by adding some new feature in accessing Youtube from their Android phones.
Where is the 'innovation' that Microsoft want to brings in with simply dipping into Google data?
"
what antitrust is about..
if for example google controls 99% of the video distribution (note the if), then they are a monopoly on that.
If google applies special rules that forbid others to compete (can't start competing service / can't access google service the same way as they do etc) then antitrust applies.

When the service is NOT a monopoly, antitrust does not apply.

IANAL but this is a quick & dirty explanation

Reply Score: 5

Acess denied!
by unclefester on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:40 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I clicked on the link - Access denied!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Acess denied!
by Lennie on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:43 UTC in reply to "Acess denied!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It is an HTML-mistake, the link is broken:

<a href= http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/...

The real link is:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/...

On the issue of the double space after a full stop: seems in the HTML on that page it says: non-breaking-space followed by a normal space.

That strange, I think it's a conversion problem somewhere. I don't think Brad did it.

Edited 2011-03-31 09:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

space != (CRLF || LF || CR)
by _xmv on Thu 31st Mar 2011 09:57 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

Everytime you call a double return, a double space, god kills an open source OS!

Sorry, sometimes you just _have_ to ;-)

Reply Score: 2

double spaces
by Calipso on Thu 31st Mar 2011 10:31 UTC
Calipso
Member since:
2007-03-13

Sorry, just not possible to stop the double spaces. It's in the dna now after being drilled into us in school. We wish we could stop, but a single space makes us feel dirty. Of course this site strips the second space and that is why I cry every time I ready a comment with more than one sentence. :'(

Reply Score: 3

RE: double spaces
by ssokolow on Thu 31st Mar 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "double spaces"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

That's why we need LyX-like input handling in things like browsers' contentEditable support.

(LyX ignores space keypresses after the first. Browsers currently insert &nbsp; to circumvent their own whitespace normalization algorithms.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: double spaces
by jack_perry on Thu 31st Mar 2011 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: double spaces"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Lyx used not to ignore a second keypress; it would complain at the bottom of the window, and tell the user to read the manual. In fact, I was so used to that annoying message that I pulled up Lyx just now to test it, and you're right; now (v1.6.5) it seems to ignore me.

Of course, Lyx is merely mimicking TeX, the program it uses for... typesetting! The typesetting is extremely high quality; it was developed by Donald Knuth of Stanford University some decades ago, but is used routinely by publishers. And it's all open source, from TeX to Lyx. It was the original open source success story, long before Mozilla.

That said, you can create double spaces after a period in Lyx, LaTeX, etc., but the default is the correct way, typographically speaking.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: double spaces
by ssokolow on Thu 31st Mar 2011 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: double spaces"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

*nod* My point is that both TeX and browsers do the right thing but, while things like contentEditable just silently insert &nbsp;, LyX requires you to consciously decide to do things in a way that implies it might not be how you're supposed to use it.

The browser UI second-guesses the rendering engine on that point while LyX doesn't second-guess TeX.

Reply Score: 3

RE: double spaces
by Jondice on Thu 31st Mar 2011 14:13 UTC in reply to "double spaces"
Jondice Member since:
2006-09-20

I feel your pain. I'm glad that we put emphasis on important stuff like this in our schools. This will be my only post with a single space after periods.

Reply Score: 2

RE: double spaces
by looncraz on Thu 31st Mar 2011 18:48 UTC in reply to "double spaces"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Agreed!

I always end sentences with double-spaces unless I have character limitations.

The main advantage, to me, is to permit fragmentation of the written word into groups for speed-reading. As a quasi-speed-reader I always search to group the text into short thoughts broken apart by double-spaces or dashes.

Comma separation, such as this, can enable further grouping, but it is helpful to be able to group full sentences as well.

( I tend to read in reverse, however ).

--The loon

Reply Score: 2

RE: double spaces
by kittynipples on Thu 31st Mar 2011 19:16 UTC in reply to "double spaces"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

And however many spaces you place after a sentence has nothing do with grammar, and is only a preference of presentation. People who get worked up over it should get a life.

Reply Score: 1

just a historical note
by TechGeek on Thu 31st Mar 2011 19:19 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Thom:

Just a note. Looking Glass was written for Linux and was a true 3D desktop environment rather than 3D effects layered on a 2D desktop. The author worked for Sun at the time(2003) and did it as a personal project. So lets be honest about where the real innovation was happening.

NOTE:There may have been 3d desktops before this but I am not aware of any.

Reply Score: 3

RE: just a historical note
by kittynipples on Thu 31st Mar 2011 19:40 UTC in reply to "just a historical note"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02
Innovation != Issue
by tomcat on Thu 31st Mar 2011 22:29 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

The issue here is antitrust; specifically, does Google have such a strangehold on Search in Europe -- and it appears that they do -- that it blocks competitors from competing? It isn't good for a single entity to control an entire market -- but it's worse when that entity actively BLOCKS other competitors from even being able to compete. Regardless of whether you dislike Microsoft, it is better when there's robust competition. Browser competition has produced better browsers -- and even Microsoft responded by improving its own browser. We should expect no less from Search. Google has become very sleazy and heavy-handed. IMHO, it's time they were reined in. We will all benefit.

Reply Score: 2

Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Thu 31st Mar 2011 22:39 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011033112355966

"Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google"

Interesting.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Groklaw: PJ's take
by tomcat on Thu 31st Mar 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "Groklaw: PJ's take"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011033112355966 "Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google" Interesting.


That's one (slanted) interpretation. The other one is that Google is cheating.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Fri 1st Apr 2011 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Groklaw: PJ's take"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011033112355966 "Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google" Interesting.
That's one (slanted) interpretation. The other one is that Google is cheating. "

If antitrust is using a monopoly (earned or not) in one market to create a monopoly in another market (say, as an example, using a monopoly in a desktop OS to create a monopoly in desktop Office suite application) ... how exactly is Google cheating?

Has Google somehow added "exculsive-to-Google" features to the web so that one now has to search it with Google (say for example akin to adding one-OS-only extensions to a web browser and embedding it irremovably in a desktop OS)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly

"Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices."

So ... how exactly are Google using exclusionary practices? What exactly does Google offer that one MUST use only Google products to access?

Edited 2011-04-01 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by tomcat on Fri 1st Apr 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw: PJ's take"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

If antitrust is using a monopoly (earned or not) in one market to create a monopoly in another market (say, as an example, using a monopoly in a desktop OS to create a monopoly in desktop Office suite application) ...


No, wrong. It's "trust" behavior. "Antitrust" is any legislation/effort to break up the monopolistic "trust".

how exactly is Google cheating?


Leveraging one monopoly to create another; a la Microsoft's use of its OS monopoly to create a monopoly in the market for Web browsers. You do remember that, right? Well, Google is trying to use Search monopoly in Europe to create other monopolies. Get it?

So ... how exactly are Google using exclusionary practices? What exactly does Google offer that one MUST use only Google products to access?


Read the complaint. Or do you need everyone else to do your thinking for you?

Edited 2011-04-01 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Groklaw: PJ's take"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, Google is trying to use Search monopoly in Europe to create other monopolies. Get it?


What are these other monopolies? I still don't understand how Google is the only search that works in Europe (you know, in the same kind of way that ActiveX web applets will only work if a user runs Windows)?

"So ... how exactly are Google using exclusionary practices? What exactly does Google offer that one MUST use only Google products to access?


Read the complaint. Or do you need everyone else to do your thinking for you?
"

The response doesn't answer the question, I notice.

I will pose it again: "What exactly does Google offer that one MUST use only Google products to access?"

Strangely enough, reading the complaint doesn't answer this question either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Fri 1st Apr 2011 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Groklaw: PJ's take"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's one (slanted) interpretation. The other one is that Google is cheating.


Here is yet another interpretation:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2011/03/31/microsoft-vs-goog...

"For those of us who have been following Microsoft since the early 1980s, this is a moment to cherish worthy of Monty Python. It's like the Romans complaining that the Visigoths weren't following best practice in health and safety as they poured over the city walls in AD 410. "


I had to Google who the Visigoths were ... they were the Germanic tribe who sacked Rome in 410 AD and hence effictively brought about the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Sounds about right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by tomcat on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw: PJ's take"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I had to Google who the Visigoths were ... they were the Germanic tribe who sacked Rome in 410 AD and hence effictively brought about the downfall of the Roman Empire. Sounds about right.


So, in your mind, it's good to have only a single search provider in Europe? I'm just trying to understand the depths of your hypocrisy so, please, enlighten me ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Groklaw: PJ's take"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I had to Google who the Visigoths were ... they were the Germanic tribe who sacked Rome in 410 AD and hence effictively brought about the downfall of the Roman Empire. Sounds about right.


So, in your mind, it's good to have only a single search provider in Europe? I'm just trying to understand the depths of your hypocrisy so, please, enlighten me ...
"

There are many search providers in Europe.

So I'm not sure I understand the question. Exactly who is being excluded from search (either searching, or providing search services) in Europe? How are they being excluded? Is that a particular popular browser will only work with one search engine, or something (similar to the way that some popular desktop applications or formats are only available for one particular desktop OS)? Are there extensions bundled with a near-monopoly OS that will only work with one search engine? Is it that you can only use Google search in Europe, somehow akin the situation in European mass-market retail stores where you can only buy systems with one particular operating system?

Admittedly I am not in Europe, but on my Firefox 4 browser right now when I pull down the icon to the left of the search box, I can select between Google, Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go, and set any of them as the default. Is this not the case in Europe?

Enquiring minds would like to know.

Edited 2011-04-02 13:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Groklaw: PJ's take
by tomcat on Mon 4th Apr 2011 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Groklaw: PJ's take"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

There are many search providers in Europe. So I'm not sure I understand the question.


Wrong. Google has 95% search market share in Europe. So, effectively, there is only one search provider in Europe. A few percentage points doesn't equate to competition.

Exactly who is being excluded from search (either searching, or providing search services) in Europe? How are they being excluded? Is that a particular popular browser will only work with one search engine, or something (similar to the way that some popular desktop applications or formats are only available for one particular desktop OS)? Are there extensions bundled with a near-monopoly OS that will only work with one search engine? Is it that you can only use Google search in Europe, somehow akin the situation in European mass-market retail stores where you can only buy systems with one particular operating system? Admittedly I am not in Europe, but on my Firefox 4 browser right now when I pull down the icon to the left of the search box, I can select between Google, Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go, and set any of them as the default. Is this not the case in Europe? Enquiring minds would like to know.


The basic problem here is that Google is actively trying to prevent anybody from competing with them in search -- either by restrictive contracts, exclusive OEM deals, technology walls, and other sleazy tactics which aren't based on user choice but what provider they happen to have wired into their machine on first boot. Many/most users don't know how to change their search engine. Google knows this, so it works with OEMs and software providers to limit choice.

So, again, do you really want a single company to have that much power over an important market like search? It's really that simple.

Edited 2011-04-04 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Groklaw: PJ's take
by lemur2 on Fri 1st Apr 2011 05:55 UTC in reply to "Groklaw: PJ's take"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011033112355966 "Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google" Interesting.


Opposing view to PJ's ... Microsoft didn't give up ...

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=201103311235596...

Reply Score: 2

Pot meet Kettle!
by cmost on Fri 1st Apr 2011 18:17 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

If this isn't an example of the Pot calling the Kettle black, I don't know what is... c.c C.C

Reply Score: 2

Interesting
by computrius on Fri 1st Apr 2011 23:32 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

Every english teacher/professor ive ever had has told me the propper way is to use two spaces after a period. This contradicts everything I have been told ;)

Reply Score: 2

BeOS
by Andre on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 19:33 UTC
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

My respects for those last lines:

I wish that during the next press talk about this, someone has the bloody guts to stand up and say just one word.

BeOS.

Reply Score: 1